'Build' Madness.

[Cadfan]

Builds: We won't see bunches of these in splat books. Why would we? They're just starter character advice.

But maybe you meant to say Rogue Tactics, then no. I don't think we'll see more of those either. They're not just a starter ability, they are intertwined with the rogue powers. A newly created "patient rogue" or whatever would be hard to design because all the currently existing powers do not reference it. It could be done, yes, but it would require not only coming up with the basic idea, but also a sufficient number of new rogue powers, available to all rogues but augmented for our hypothetical Patient Rogue, in order to support the concept. I think that's an awful lot of work for one variant character, so I suspect that character variants will come in other ways. Probably Paragon Paths.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Thoughts?

I think you don't understand what the builds are. They're just suggested combinations of feats/powers that already exist in the game. They're the same suggested builds that existed in 3E, but now they're from mearls instead of posters on the forums here. That's it. And they're just suggestions.

Personally I think it's cool that they're explicitly saying "Look, some of these work better when combined in certain ways. Your choice whether to go that way or not, but here's our advice."

 

[Kobold Avenger]

First of all let mesay I am not happy with them actually using the word 'build' officialy. In the core rulebooks. I still can'tbelieve they did that.

Anyhow, I now forsee splats with maqny more 'builds' with their associated powers along with ofcourse, more powers for the existing builds. So we could have a 'Patient Rogue' who uses wisdom instead of charisma or strength, along with associated powers.

What's wrong with a user's hint-book for newbie players?

 

[Kosh]

Madness?

But yeah. I'm glad they put the builds in the core book. I know a lot of gamers that will use them as guidelines. Without them, I bet the mass of powers would turn off some casual gamers.

Why not include a short passage per class if it helps out a group of gamers and does nothing to limit the veteran character builders?

 

[Hussar]

Madness?

But yeah. I'm glad they put the builds in the core book. I know a lot of gamers that will use them as guidelines. Without them, I bet the mass of powers would turn off some casual gamers.

Why not include a short passage per class if it helps out a group of gamers and does nothing to limit the veteran character builders?

You must remember that we must keep the hobby pure. Allowing any assistance for those who do not devote massive amounts of time to it must be stopped.

 

[FireLance]

But maybe you meant to say Rogue Tactics, then no. I don't think we'll see more of those either. They're not just a starter ability, they are intertwined with the rogue powers. A newly created "patient rogue" or whatever would be hard to design because all the currently existing powers do not reference it. It could be done, yes, but it would require not only coming up with the basic idea, but also a sufficient number of new rogue powers, available to all rogues but augmented for our hypothetical Patient Rogue, in order to support the concept. I think that's an awful lot of work for one variant character, so I suspect that character variants will come in other ways. Probably Paragon Paths.

New tactics could also improve existing abilities, for example, an Elusive Acrobat (or whatever) might be able to shift an extra square when using Tumble.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Obviously its inevitable, anbd they do havemouths to feed and all, but just thought I would point it out. I mean, did we really need builds? WHy not just give simple powers and let the player figure out the type of char he wants? Some powers oucld inherently focuson a certain stat, allowing for specialization.

Thoughts?

Somebody already pointed this out in the thread, but it seems worth repeating it again to make sure that everyone noticed it.

themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.

In other words, the game does exactly what you're saying -- you can pick your powers and figure out what kind of character you want. They explicitly state this in the preview, in the text quoted here. The 'builds' shown are included as samples, like the sample characters in the 3e PHB or the recommended feat lists in the PHBII. You are NOT restricted to using these builds. You don't have to use these builds. The builds are SAMPLES. They are EXPLICITLY STATED to be samples.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What's wrong with a user's hint-book for newbie players?

It's the route to powergaming and munchkinismn!!! People will no longer think about their characters... well character, personality. They just care about picking the best feats and powers to make the most powerful build ever, and only look for opponents to test their characters against. Nobody will ever be able to enter a D&D where people immerse themselves in their game!!! The Sky - for all intents and purposes regarding D&D - is falling!



Maybe I am wrong and that's not what critics are getting at. But it's the only thing that I can come up with. And I am not saying that it's 100 % unfounded. I am just saying it's a needless concern. Powergamers like me will always look for ways to do that. And we'll probably ignore any suggested builds and try to come up with something better, more power! And if the powergamer is really cool, he'll even give his build character a distinct personality.
And the non-powergamers will ignore the builds if they don't suite their character concept, or they will follow it if it inspires them to make a certain personality.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

New tactics could also improve existing abilities, for example, an Elusive Acrobat (or whatever) might be able to shift an extra square when using Tumble.

Hmm. I will not discount this possibility, but I think it's the same problem as the 3.0 way of denoting bonus feats by a defined list, except even more complicated to adjust.

What I see is a possibility for new "Rogue Tactics" introduced together with new powers, some of them utilisizing these new Rogue Tactics. (It might become overpowered if new powers also improve already existing tactics...)

 

[Belphanior]

Given his mention of the "patient rogue" as a direct analogue of brawny rogues or artful dodgers, I think it's save to assume he meant Tactics.

I think it's unlikely we'll see a whole lot more of these, since they'd have to retroactively revise several of their already released powers to incorporate the new Tactics. Want to add in a new Accurate Rogue type? Then you'll need to adjust Piercing Strike probably.

Also, rangers already had this kind of dichotomy built into them. Did we see a whole lot of new ranger types? I didn't.

The OP is also wrong when he states that in 3.x we only had to worry about "feats and prc's". Does the term 'Spells' maybe ring a bell? It also seems to me that the new paragon paths will be less likely to be unbalanced than PrClasses. The former is something everyone can take at a certain level I think, but the latter is pure and simple additional power with some prerequisites (unless it's badly designed). Nobody can deny the power that comes with Ruby Knight Vindicator, but when everybody has something similar going on it's not an issue.